On the Wrong Side of the Digital Divide

Life Without Internet Access, and Why We Must Fix It in the Age of COVID-19

June 2, 2020 • TECHNOLOGY EQUITY

Introduction

COVID-19 CHANGED THE DIGITAL DIVIDE FROM A PROBLEM INTO AN EMERGENCY

An Internet connection is critical to economic opportunity. That’s why The Greenlining Institute believes fast, reliable internet access should be a basic right, not a luxury, in today’s increasingly connected society. This has been brought into sharp relief by the novel coronavirus epidemic, forcing schools, colleges and offices to shut down and millions of students and workers to study and work from home. What constitutes an inconvenience for many becomes nearly impossible for those without a home broadband connection -- made even worse by the shutting down of libraries and cafes that allowed many without home broadband to get online.

This mini-report explores what life is like for those who lack internet access.

Even in normal times, completing homework, finding a job, working from home, starting a business, making appointments, and accessing government services all require an internet connection. However, too many low-income families don’t have this critical service and are on the wrong side of the “Digital Divide,” a term used to describe the gap between those who have access to computers and the internet and those who do not. Frequently, low-income communities of color sit on the wrong side of this digital divide.

Summary of Findings:

Prior to the advent of the COVID-19 crisis, Greenlining asked residents of two California communities, Fresno and Oakland, to share their struggles with internet access and found these common themes, all of which have been made more urgent by the pandemic:

1

Internet access is not a luxury

2

Lack of access creates significant hurdles for everyday life

3

Smartphone access is insufficient

4

Internet plans designed for low-income families are inadequate

5

Lack of access is a barrier to academic success

CALIFORNIA’S DIGITAL DIVIDE

Nearly 22 percent of Californians are unconnected or underconnected to the internet, usually because internet access simply costs too much for too many families (1). This affordability barrier affects low-income families and communities of color the most.

Latino households are only about one third as likely to have access to home internet as White ones (2).

California’s wealthiest households are 16 times as likely to have access to home internet as the poorest ones (3).

22%

Nearly 22% of Californians are unconnected or underconnected to the internet

21%

Latino households are 21% less likely to have access to home internet than White ones.

The Greenlining Institute mapped out Internet accessibility throughout California and found that areas that were redlined by banks in the past are digitally redlined today. Internet service providers in California invest millions deploying next generation high-speed internet networks in wealthy neighborhoods while ignoring low-income communities of color.

These patterns mirror the old patterns of redlining. Redlining was the deliberate practice, carried out by both the government and the private sector, of denying loans and investment to communities of color. Though officially illegal for decades, recent investigations have found that redlining still occurs, sometimes in less overt forms.

Competition and fiber-based services are less widely available in low-income areas and communities of color, with the most severe deficits observed in census block groups that combine poverty and a large percentage of Black residents (4).

A historical redlining map of the City of Oakland and neighboring towns.

A heat map of the CIty of Oakland's Digital Divide in 2020.

As you can see, today's map of communities in and near Oakland lacking high-speed internet access closely resembles official redlining maps from the 1930s. Neighborhoods depicted in red have access to significantly lower quality broad brand.

Yellow: Average internet speeds, mid to high levels of internet adoption and internet costs are reasonable relative to household income.

Orange and Red: Below average internet speeds, low internet adoption rates, and internet access costs are a large burden relative to household income.

LIFE IN THE DIGITAL DIVIDE

INTERVIEWS WITH CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS

Greenlining interviewed California residents in Oakland and Fresno who had limited or no access to the internet to get a better picture of what life is like in the digital divide. In order to allow interviewees to speak freely and maintain privacy, we used pseudonyms if requested.

PItch

Pitch is a 16-year-old Asian American Fresno resident who lives with her parents and four siblings on a $1,700 monthly income.

Pitch is a 16-year-old Asian American Fresno resident (ZIP code 93702), a high school junior who lives with her parents and four siblings, one of whom is in grade school, on a $1,700 monthly income. Despite having access to home internet, she often shares one computer among two of her siblings— resulting in her primarily using her phone to complete homework, which she usually must complete online. Of her seven classes, six require homework to be turned in online. She is working to create her own business and hopes to attend college to continue her business education.

Daisy

Daisy is a17-year-old Latina Fresno resident who lives with her parents and two brothers on a $1,600 monthly income.

Daisy is a17-year-old Latina Fresno resident (ZIP code 93706), a high school senior who lives with her parents and two brothers on a $1,600 monthly income. She accesses the internet through her phone and uses it to complete homework. Six of her classes require internet access. Each day she spends about an hour doing homework, but estimates that if she had home internet and a computer it would take her half that time. She hopes to attend college to study journalism.

Amanda

Amanda is a28-year-old Latina Fresno resident who lives with her husband and three children on a $1,200 monthly income.

Amanda is a28-year-old Latina Fresno resident (ZIP code 93705), a sophomore community college student who lives with her husband and three children ages 13, nine and four years old, getting by on a $1,200 monthly income. She accesses the internet through a laptop at home but pays more than $100 for her internet plan. All her college classes require internet access and her children rely on it to complete their school work as well. Amanda is studying child development at Fresno City College and hopes to transfer to Fresno State in the fall.

Sandra

Sandra is a 19-year-old Latina Fresno resident who lives on a $2,300 monthly income.

Sandra is19 years old Latina Fresno resident (ZIP code 93722), a community college sophomore who lives with her two parents who are on disability, which provides a $2,300 monthly income. Her family is enrolled on the Access program from AT&T but received a one-year-long hotspot as part of a college program. All her homework assignments require internet access, and she spends five or six hours a day doing homework. She is studying Biology at Fresno City College and hopes to attend medical school in the future.

Jennifer

Jennifer is a19-year-old Latina Fresno resident who lives by herself.

Jennifer is a19-year-old Latina Fresno resident (ZIP code 93722), a sophomore studying accounting at Fresno City College who lives by herself. She has a laptop but no internet at home, which is a burden given that she takes online classes and must rely on the internet to access her classes and reading materials. She hopes to become an accountant and help businesses succeed.

Miss A

Miss A (pseudonym) is a Black Oakland resident in her mid 60s with a disability that impairs her mobility on very tight monthly income.

Miss A is a Black Oakland resident (ZIP code 94612) in her mid 60s, she is completing a professional program and living with a disability that impairs her mobility on very tight monthly income. She uses her phone as a hotspot for emergencies and relies on local libraries to access the internet. All her reading materials and research require internet access. She currently studies nonprofit management at Cal State East Bay and is looking for employment.

Felix

Felix is a White Oakland resident in his mid 50s living by himself.

Felix is a White Oakland resident (ZIP code 94612) in his mid-50s, living by himself in a single room occupancy building. He uses his limited phone data to access the internet and to complete web design projects. Felix used to work for Laney College’s student newspaper but was let go over a year ago. He was looking for work when we interviewed him and has recently found a job.

Why We Must Fix It Now

Real Stories from the Digital Divide

1. Internet access is not a luxury

some go into debt to have it and others cannot afford it at all

When we asked about the importance of internet access and their budgets, they told us they considered internet access a priority even when they struggled to afford it. Others noted that $15 a month is the most they could afford for home internet.

Pitch

“My mom pays $160/month for internet but she's behind every month so we owe about $637. In the past year, we have lost the internet twice [due to nonpayment] for a week or two. We usually don’t lose the internet for too long because my mom ends up borrowing money from someone because we need it. If we don’t have it we can’t do our work to catch up on classes and we can lose points for turning in assignments late.”

Amanda

“Rent and food are my first priority for my family and if it's the internet or food I will choose food… It’s not like I can afford it [home internet], I have to ask people to let me borrow money. It’s something I can’t live without at home because my kids sleep at a certain time and I stay up till 3 am doing homework and I need the internet. I can’t leave the house so I have to have internet at home 24/7.”

Miss A

"If I had unlimited data, I could only pay $15 [for home internet], that would be the max without stretching myself thin. I have a spreadsheet where I keep my expenses, I’m very careful about my funds. I don’t like to be in arrears because I came out here and became homeless. I’m still traumatized by it, that is not something I would wish on anybody. So even if they offered this , if I see that I can’t fit it in my budget I wouldn’t get it. I pay my PG&E, I pay my medical insurance, I pay my credit card, my rent, of course you have to pay your groceries, your transportation, your laundry bills and so very basic stuff, there’s nothing extra because I don’t have extra. “

2. Lack of access creates significant hurdles for everyday life

Inconsistent internet access disrupts day to day activities, forcing many to go to great lengths to get connected.

When we asked people about how inconsistent internet access affected their day to day activities, they mentioned going out of their way to obtain it, disrupting their children’s schedules and risking their safety to complete their work online.

Miss A struggles with having to get internet access at public libraries that in her community have become de facto social hubs for unhoused persons:

“What I’ve found is my phone is a hotspot, but it slows down the data. So I’ve become very acquainted with the libraries, I commute back and forth to the libraries a lot. I go several times a week, my foot has kind of slowed me down but I still go several times a week. But the population… they use it as a social hub so you get a little nervous about where you sit down, you don’t know what it's going to smell like. I got bit by something one time because of, you know, the people that are out there. You have a lot of mental health [issues], you have people who are making a ruckus, stuff is jumping off, people are sleeping and snoring. There is a lot going on in the libraries but I still go.”

With Oakland libraries closed during the covid-19 pandemic, Miss A has subscribed to Internet Essentials.

When Amanda can’t afford her internet bill, she has to get creative in order to get access while taking care of her family:

“I stay at school and do my homework there. Then,I pick up my kids and take them to McDonald’s so they can play on the playground while I do my homework. It’s especially difficult now because McDonald’s doesn’t have charger outlets so once the laptop is dead it’s dead and you can’t charge it. I can’t go to Starbucks because I have children that don’t stay still. It’s really difficult.”

Felix has to bend the rules to use campus internet after hours. With libraries and colleges closed due to the pandemic, Felix is considering purchasing internet service but currently relies on a network connection provided by his new job.

“I go to Laney [community college] to get internet. Laney is only open from 8 in the morning til 8 at night. And then they have security that says, ‘Hey get off the campus,’ and the library closes as well. I have to be really quiet and on the down low to use the internet at night, it’s a super challenge.”

3. Smartphone Access is Insufficient

When we asked people about the limitations of their internet access through only their smartphone, they mentioned missing out on career opportunities.

Daisy struggles with filling out long, complicated college applications on a tiny smartphone screen:

"This year I’ve been applying to college and I’ve had to do it on my phone, but it would be easier to complete the CSU applications with a computer… I’ve had to call my counselors to help me finish [applications] because I can’t do it at home. If I had internet at home I’d use it to complete work. I’ve been interested in creative writing for some time and there are some websites where you can publish work and that would give me a chance to submit a poem and publish it.”

“[My phone] slows down and that limits me from using my phone as a hotspot. It’s only for if I really need to email somebody something really quickly. I had to go to a meeting yesterday and had to map out my directions to get there and it's like scrolling and scrolling, it’s like stick a pin in my eye why don’t you… That’s what you have to contend with when your money is limited, you have to get a phone which you need, but it's limited [if] you don’t have WiFi.”

“I have 3 gigs [of smartphone data] a month. It just takes a few hours to run out because I have so many tabs open for all these projects. I tried pairing my cell phone with the computer. But if you nod off for a few hours you lose a gig or so because you’re not paying attention. [Then] you have to wait a month for a refresh.”

4. Internet plans designed for low-income families are inadequate

Poorly-marketed programs provide inadequate service

Some low-income families can try to meet their access needs through government mandated programs like Comcast’s Internet Essentials, AT&T Access or LifeLine. However, these programs are poorly marketed, have limited eligibility and often provide families with slow, second-class service.

The average (median) internet speed in America was 72 Mbps in 2017. Research indicates that average users will need speeds of 150 Mbps by 2025. However, the majority of low-income internet plans only provide speeds of 10-15 Mbps today (5).

Amanda pays $100/month for internet even though she qualifies for AT&T’s $10/month Access program. The discounted plan is too slow for her and her children to succeed academically.

“On and off [my internet] would be shut down because I can’t afford to pay it. Some months I can’t afford it, and AT&T charges me $32 for paying late. It has happened twice this year. I second guess myself on getting the $10 plan because we are three at the same time on the internet”

“My mom is paying $10/month but it’s very slow... Sometimes I am trying to submit my assignments and it doesn’t let me so I reload it and reload it but sometimes it wouldn’t load at all until I connected to the hotspot I received from school. We don’t want to change to a more expensive WiFi because my mom and dad aren’t working. They are on disability and there isn’t another service we could afford.

“I got issues with LifeLine, I got issues with a lot of programs that are associated with, quote, “those who are marginalized, those who are poor.” I have lots of issues with those things and that’s why I’m thinking about how can I return to work. Working I made a pretty substantial salary, and now I’m living off of 20 percent of what I used to live off of and I really feel like a lot of the programs to me are very demeaning, the way that they treat the people, the way they deliver the services, I really don’t care for it… to be delivered services at where they gonna deliver it at, is generally at a place that’s not really appealing, customer service is questionable. Some of the services that are offered are delivered in a way that is rather demeaning to people. It’s not that I’m being vain or being too proud… I’m watching and people [selling lifeline] are playing music, walking by while smoking marijuana. It feels very bootleg. Would I send my mother there? I mean really. Would I want my mother to participate in these programs when they treat her with a lack of respect?”

5. Lack of Access is a Barrier to Academic Success

Poor internet access means stress and wasted time

When we asked people about how internet access impacts their education, they mentioned that having limited internet access makes homework completion take twice as long, results in having to turn in assignments late and, for some, causes stress as they have to share a slow internet connection with a large family.

Research shows that fourth graders without home internet score 15-17 percent lower on standardized math, science and reading tests than those that have it. That gap only grows as students get older (6).

“As part of my business project, I design logos and websites for businesses on my phone. It’s a struggle because the dimensions are not right and most websites are designed to be viewed on a laptop not a phone. It takes me up to a week or more to finish a particular assignment when it could take a few hours on the computer.”

“Sometimes when I try to submit my assignments it takes an hour to two hours to submit the assignment because I need to wait for the WiFi to come back. If I had fast internet at home I could do my homework and turn in my assignments on time.”

Goals & Solutions

Policy Recommendations

These stories offer a glimpse of the significant challenges that too many Californians face when it comes to internet access -- changes that have become even more urgent as the COVID-19 pandemic has pushed much work and educational activity online. Tackling these problems means California must invest in its citizens and make high-speed internet universally available and affordable. The governor’s most recent budget calls for California to provide “Broadband for All” as a way to ensure digital equity. The Greenlining Institute proposes the following three strategies to achieve this goal:

“Affordable high-speed Internet is vital to the daily lives of all Californians, such as receiving medical treatment, completing school homework, and taking advantage of emerging economic opportunities. Digital equity and inclusion – ensuring all communities enjoy the fruits of innovation – necessitates Broadband for All.”

Office of the California Governor

1. Affordable Universal Service

California should require all internet providers to market and offer affordable high-speed internet plans to low-income households. These plans should offer at least 50 Mbps speeds for $10/month to Californians earning 200 percent of the federal poverty line. Speeds should increase as usage needs grow. Greenlining supports AB 3079, because it would lower the cost of home internet service for low-income families.

2. Fiber Internet for All

California must modernize its internet connectivity by building ultra-fast “fiber” internet infrastructure statewide. This will create jobs and provide families and businesses with the internet connectivity we need to keep up with the growing demand for internet services and to remain a global leader in innovative technology. Greenlining supports SB 1130 because it would increase investment in fast, future-proof broadband networks across the state.

3. Increased Competition

Californians generally only have two internet providers to pick from, resulting in higher prices and slower speeds. As California invests in fiber internet, it should use its funds in ways that encourage cities, wireless providers, and smaller companies to compete and develop their own internet options. This would lower the cost of internet access for all Californians.

Achieving these goals will require a strong vision and bold action from all sectors of society, but taking action now is critical given the importance of the internet to economic opportunity and a stable society. Achieving an aggressive and inspired broadband vision will help families stay connected, provide economic opportunity, increase resiliency during crises, and improve the quality of life for all Californians.

State funded EV programs can help all Californians access safer, cleaner and more reliable transportation and improve our air quality.

California’s transportation sector is the number one source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 40 percent of the state’s climate-altering pollution. Pollution from cars, trucks and buses disproportionately impacts low-income communities of color and create compounding negative health and income externalities for the most vulnerable. For these disadvantaged communities the opportunity to own or lease clean, reliable electric vehicles can be life changing and transitioning from fossil-fuel powered vehicles to zero-emission vehicles is a crucial step toward improving air quality in our most burdened communities. State leaders should prioritize zero-emission vehicles to clean our air, fight climate change and further economic opportunities.

To learn more about California's equitable electric vehicle, mobility, and transportation programs, download one of our factsheets:

Incremental Progress in a Swiftly Changing Landscape

Introduction

As our country tackles problems that disproportionately affect communities of color, from income and wealth inequality to climate change, we must face the origins of these challenges head-on. Historically, when public utilities contracted with outside suppliers, they did so using an “old-boy” network, which denied economic opportunity to businesses owned by people of color and by other historically marginalized groups.

Always on the cutting edge, California and many of the companies that operate here have long recognized that diversity is integral to good business, and that a diverse workforce and diverse procurement investment can help companies venture into new markets and increase shareholder value. Nowhere is this culture more apparent than in the groundbreaking supplier diversity efforts taken on by utility companies under the guiding principles of the California Public Utilities Commission’s General Order 156. The California Public Utilities Commission’s model for promoting supplier diversity in the industries it regulates has withstood the test of time and, when the policy is made a priority by the sitting commissioners, it has generated unprecedented results.

Summary of Findings

California’s energy, telecommunications, and water companies remain at the forefront of supplier diversity achievements, with a “class average” well above their peers nationwide. However, there is still progress to be made. In 2018, figures reported by the companies to the California Public Utilities Commission show that:

Most companies improved their percentage of procurement dollars spent with Minority Business Enterprises in 2018. However, a broad gap remains between high performers and low performers.

The cable industry continues to neglect supplier diversity, with Comcast and Cox both receiving grades of F. Comcast’s contracting with minority suppliers dropped sharply this year.

With the exception of Verizon, Cox, and Sprint, the companies’ spending with African American Business Enterprises continued to be a challenge.

While over two thirds of the companies saw improvement in their spending with Latino suppliers, overall spending with those suppliers was still unacceptably low.

The companies’ spending with Native American suppliers saw some improvement, with 50 percent of companies reporting increased spending.

The companies’ spending with women-owned suppliers stayed relatively flat in 2018, and the companies’ spending with minority women-owned suppliers remained markedly lower than spending with women-owned suppliers overall.

The companies’ spending on LGBT-owned suppliers saw some improvement, but still has a long way to go.

The companies’ spending with disabled veteran-owned suppliers continued to slip.

This year, three companies exceeded 30 percent procurement with minority-owned businesses. In addition to the overall strength of 2018’s results, companies spent a combined $39 billion with businesses owned by people of color, an $8 billion increase over 2017.

While these results are impressive, several companies report internal pressure to reduce or eliminate their supplier diversity programs. In the face of leadership changes, budget cuts, shifts in corporate strategy and other internal changes, the benefits of supplier diversity remain relevant and necessary in the 21st century global economy.

Companies that report strong support from executive leadership and concerted efforts to include diversity at all stages in the procurement process continue to show strong results. In particular, companies that embrace supplier diversity best practices demonstrate strong results in traditionally underutilized categories. These industry leaders show that strong performance and consistent progress are, in fact, possible and set a strong example for their reporting peers.

It is particularly encouraging that 2018 saw overall strong results at a time when the energy and communications industries underwent significant shifts in the landscape. Utilities have grappled with the emergence of more community choice aggregators online1 and serving customers, as well as more frequent, larger, and more devastating wildfires across the state; these changes in the energy landscape raise necessary questions about the electrical grid’s reliability, affordability, and resiliency. Wireline and wireless companies have experienced a shift from regulation at the federal level to regulation at the state level, which may result in those companies having to adjust their business models in response to state-level regulation. Despite these challenges, many of the companies in those industries maintained or increased their supplier diversity spending

About Our Report

The Greenlining Institute’s Supplier Diversity Report Card grades California’s energy, communications, and water companies based on the supplier diversity reports the companies file with the California Public Utilities Commission. Our rankings are based on performance and improvement: Grades are primarily determined by the companies’ percentage spending, with adjustments made for significant increases or decreases compared to the previous year. We break down spending by ethnic categories, as well as minority women-, disabled veteran-, and LGBT-owned suppliers. We make recommendations based on what we see in the numbers and what we hear from the companies themselves about their programs and practices. We advocate for supplier diversity because it creates economic gains on all sides: It promotes economic development in diverse communities, and by increasing competition and diversity in the supply chain, generates a better return on investment for companies that meaningfully engage in it.

Executive Summary

The Greenlining Institute regularly examines corporate executive board diversity.1 Our 2019 study zeroes in on the gender and racial makeup of bank executive boards, and occurs just as federal policymakers push for diversity in banking and financial inclusion, including the recent creation of a Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion within the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services and a June 2019 hearing on “Diversity in the Boardroom.” Greenlining supports efforts in Congress to increase board diversity by requiring disclosure of corporate board demographics (H.R. 3279 and H.R. 1018) and identifying diverse board candidates (H.R. 281).

Our analysis of the 10 largest depository banks in California, defined by deposit market share, found that on average, people of color make up 30 percent of board composition, while making up over 67 percent of California’s population. Bank of the West topped the rankings with a board containing 75 percent people of color.

Why Board Diversity at Banks Matters

When companies are intentional about creating diverse, equitable and inclusive work environments, they help to disrupt the income disparities that inform broader economic conditions in marginalized communities. For financial institutions in particular, the leadership should reflect the communities they serve in order to effectively build trust with consumers and make capital and financial services accessible. And ultimately, a diverse board improves an institution’s bottom line.3

Executive boards are the ultimate decision-makers in financial institutions and drive policies that trickle down to communities. Boards are accountable for the actions and behaviors of their institutions. In order to fight redlining and promote economic development in communities of color, boards need to reflect the diversity of the population they serve. In the United States, people of color make up 41.8 percent of the population. California’s population is more than 67 percent people of color.

Greenlining Standards for Equitable Bank Boards:

Consider the racial demographics of the United States as a benchmark for representation.

Consider the gender demographics of the United States as a benchmark for representation.

Include at least one person of color and one woman for consideration in board candidate searches.

We believe that executive boards of national banks that meet Greenlining’s standards for equity will be more likely to create equitable and inclusive policies and have a greater commitment to diverse communities.

Report Findings

Board diversity among California’s largest banks still has room for progress. Overall, the boards of the banks we analyzed fail to mirror the racial and gender diversity of California and most also fail to reflect the demographics of the United States overall. Although Bank of the West ranks highest, with 75 percent of its board made up of people of color, the majority of the banks we studied had fewer than 40 percent people of color on their boards and, on average, people of color made up 30 percent of board composition.

Strategies for Building Diverse Boards

Bank boards should reflect the diversity of California and the nation. We believe that the following strategies will lead to greater racial equity within banks and in their investments in communities. Diverse leadership will help banks understand and meet the needs of their diverse customer base and prioritize reinvestment in currently underrepresented communities.

The momentum to usher in a new era of cleaner, healthier, all-electric new homes and buildings has gained steam in California. With more than 50 cities either considering or having passed measures to accelerate all-electric buildings, the gas industry is working overtime to stoke fear around building electrification. In partnership with the California’s Energy Efficiency for All Coalition, The Greenlining Institute studied the challenges and opportunities that building electrification presents for low-income communities – 70 percent of whom are renters caught up in a housing and energy affordability crisis.

Greenlining’s Equitable Building Electrification Framework addresses the opportunities and challenges that electrification presents for low-income communities – 70 percent of whom are renters. The framework finds that electrification can be a transformative force for low-income residents and it explains the steps the state must take to ensure that electrification helps close the clean energy gap in California and provides relief to millions of residents facing energy insecurity in the current system.

Electrification provides low-income communities access to major benefits such as cleaner air, healthier homes, good jobs and empowered workers, and greater access to affordable clean energy and energy efficiency to reduce monthly energy bills, while helping the state meet its climate goals, including a net-zero carbon economy and 100 percent clean electricity by 2045.

Meanwhile, the cost of safely maintaining California’s gas system is set to escalate dramatically in coming years as increasing infrastructure costs and safety upgrades combine with a decline in demand as the state transitions away from fossil fuels to hit its climate targets.

The result will be higher costs spread around fewer customers – leading to significantly higher gas bills and prompting those with the means to do so to move off the system for financial, health, and environmental reasons. As this trend continues, gas customers who face barriers to electrification will need assistance to move to cleaner electric appliances to help shield them from the rising cost of gas.

What Is Building Electrification?

Building electrification means eliminating use of fossil fuels for functions like heating and cooking and replacing gas appliances with alternatives that use electricity. In California, 25 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions come from the buildings we live and work in. As our electric grid gets steadily cleaner, building electrification can play a big role in fighting climate change.

This five-step framework presents a start-to-finish recipe for how the current goals of building electrification can be aligned with producing healthy homes, creating high quality, local jobs that cannot be outsourced, and establishing stronger connections between everyday Californians and our climate change policies and goals.

Step 1: Assess the Communities’ Needs. This should include understanding barriers preventing community members from electrifying their homes, residents’ knowledge levels regarding building electrification, and their specific needs, wishes and concerns.

Step 2: Establish Community-Led Decision-Making. Rich community input and engagement strengthen the overall program design quality with stronger cultural competence, ensure local buy-in and investment, and deliver tangible local benefits rooted in the lived experiences of everyday people. Partner with community-based organizations to develop a decision-making process that ensures that decisions are based on community needs and priorities.

Step 3: Develop Metrics and a Plan for Tracking. Metrics should include both clean energy benefits like greenhouse gas reductions and community benefits such as local hires and residents’ ability to pay their energy bills without sacrificing other essential expenses.

Step 4: Ensure Funding and Program Leveraging. Current low-income energy programs often fail to deliver maximum benefits to all qualifying households due to short and unpredictable funding cycles, poor program design that inadequately reaches qualifying customers, or lack of coordination and integration with complementary programs.

Step 5: Improve Outcomes. Using the tracking and metrics plan described above, ensure that there is a continuous feedback loop to improve current and future programs’ reach and impact in ESJ communities. Consider adjustments to ensure the program reaches the people it seeks to reach and delivers the intended benefits. Together we can create the foundations needed for a just transition within the work to come on building electrification, but it will require deliberate and inclusive actions. This document can be used by anyone interested in solving problems with a fresh perspective, removing barriers to participation in the clean energy economy, and bringing communities together around shared goals.

California is a leader in climate policy and has modeled an unprecedented statewide effort to fight climate change. However, climate change impacts do not affect all communities in the same way. Frontline communities including low-income communities, communities of color, indigenous peoples and tribal nations, and immigrant communities suffer first and worst from climate disasters. This is due to decades of underinvestment and unjust systems that have left these communities with disproportionately high costs for energy, transportation and basic necessities, limited access to public services, high levels of poverty and pollution, and outdated and weak critical infrastructure.

Climate change exacerbates these injustices that frontline communities face, making climate adaptation and community resilience essential priorities. Strategies to tackle climate change must prioritize the most impacted and least resourced communities. California must develop programs and policies that truly center social equity in climate adaptation efforts and uplift frontline communities so that they do not simply “bounce back” to the unjust status quo after climate disasters strike but are able to “bounce forward” as healthy, resilient and sustainable communities.

PURPOSE

To prioritize the climate adaptation and community resilience needs of frontline communities and address the historical neglect they have experienced, California must move beyond embracing equity to making it real. This requires centering community needs and building social equity into the very fabric of policies and grant programs that focus on climate adaptation and resilience. To get there, this Guidebook offers policymakers a blueprint on how to operationalize equity in policies and grant programs.

FOUR STEPS TO MAKING EQUITY REAL

Embed Equity in the Mission, Vision, & Values: Policies and grant programs should explicitly state a commitment to equity and specifically identify the vulnerable populations they seek to benefit. The effort must aim to create comprehensive climate strategies for communities that not only build the resilience of physical environments but address other health and economic injustices that climate impacts exacerbate.

Build Equity into the Process: Processes should deeply engage community members so as to learn about their priorities, needs and challenges to adapting to climate impacts. The information gathered should inform the development and implementation of the policy or grant program.

Ensure Equity Outcomes: The implementation of the policy or grant program must lead to equity outcomes that respond to community needs, reduce climate vulnerabilities, and increase community resilience. Outcomes can include improved public health and safety, workforce and economic development, and more.

Measure & Analyze for Equity: Policies and grant programs should regularly evaluate their equity successes and challenges to improve the effort going forward.

Making Equity Real in Climate Adaptation and Community Resilience Policies and Programs:

Making Equity Real in Climate Adaptation and Community Resilience Policies and Programs – A Guidebook. The Guidebook provides specific recommendations on how to operationalize social equity in the goals, process, implementation and analysis of policies and grant programs focused on climate adaptation. The report includes examples from existing policies and grant programs to illustrate what the recommendations look like in practice. The Guidebook is intended for policymakers who develop policies (bills, executive orders, local measures) and agencies that develop grant programs. Communities and advocates may also use this Guidebook as a tool to assess how social equity shows up in climate adaptation and resilience proposals.

Related Research from APEN:

Greenlining released this report jointly with a report from the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, “Mapping Resilience: A Blueprint for Thriving in the Face of Climate Disasters.” APEN’s work shows a path forward for identifying the people and regions most impacted by climate change. Taken together, the two reports can guide policymakers in identifying vulnerable communities and providing them the climate adaptation resources they need.

Equity is transforming the behaviors, institutions, and systems that disproportionately harm people of color. Equity means increasing access to power, redistributing and providing additional resources, and eliminating barriers to opportunity, in order to empower low-income communities of color to thrive and reach full potential. Low-income people of color often face financial, technological, physical, or cultural, barriers to accessing shared mobility and transportation services (i.e. bikeshare, scooter share, Uber, carshare, etc.). When mobility projects are not implemented with equity in mind, they reinforce the inequalities baked into our systems and can often deepen those inequalities.

Increasingly, equity is becoming mainstream in mobility. Yet this could turn into an empty promise without a clear strategy and understanding of how to put equity into action to achieve that promise. Equity is not just a commitment – it is a practice. Our Environmental Equity team has compiled a set of resources and tools intended to guide government agencies, companies, and other entities in the planning, development, implementation, and evaluation of equitable mobility projects.

Greenlining’s definition of equity is specific to racial equity, given the legacy of institutionalized racism by government. Our emphasis on race is not about excluding other marginalized groups. These equity approaches are intended to also be applicable to creating equitable outcomes for other groups such as the elderly and people with disabilities. This resource outlines four key tools to help guide teams on the various ways to embed equity during each phase of the process. The following is an overview of the four different documents included in the toolkit:

Overview: 4 Steps to Making Equity Real

This document is an overview of the four steps needed to operationalize equity within a pilot project based on our report, “Mobility Equity Framework: How to Make Transportation Work for People.” The following documents provide supplementary information to complete these four steps in an equitable, inclusive, and culturally appropriate way.

Equity Considerations

Before developing an equitable mobility pilot project, read these “Equity Considerations” and think about whether and how your mobility pilot addresses the questions. These considerations are a starting point to operationalizing equity within a pilot project and answering them will give you a baseline for how your project centers and embeds equity. Going through these considerations will also help you identify areas in your pilot concept that are strong in equity, and areas that need improvement. Keep this list of questions and your responses for reference as you complete the four steps to developing an equitable mobility project.

Community Engagement Best Practices

This document outlines best practices on for meaningfully engaging and empowering communities at all stages of project development and deployment. It provides examples of community engagement activities and lists various cultural considerations to bear in mind when conducting community engagement.

Mobility Pilot Project Worksheet

Once you read the previous documents, filling out this worksheet can help kickstart a list of specific activities and tasks to develop and deploy an equitable project. As needed, reference the other documents as you fill it out.

California offers a variety of climate change grants that aim to both fight climate change and also create a variety of other benefits. These grant programs can improve air quality and community health, reduce consumers’ energy bills and create clean economy jobs. But far too often these programs fail to adequately reach the communities with the greatest needs, especially low-income communities of color. For that reason, Greenlining believes officials designing these climate change grants must make a conscious, thoughtful effort to embed social equity into all aspects of each program and grant-making process.

A comparison of CalEnviroScreen maps showing the most polluted and economically disadvantaged communities with maps showing communities of color illustrates the literally toxic effects of redlining and its aftermath. A concerted effort to embed social equity into climate change grants can help put large amounts of funding to work relieving these historical inequities and level the playing field for historically disadvantaged communities.

In this report, we provide a roadmap for embedding social equity into climate change grants, focusing on four key steps:

The program’s Goals, Vision and Values should explicitly state the social equity goals of the grant program to help ensure these goals get prioritized.

The program’s process should include working with partners who have social equity expertise and incorporate strategies for inclusive outreach and technical assistance.

The implementation of climate change grants is critical. Staff must make sure that grant awardees have the resources and tools they need to get the greatest possible environmental and economic benefits and minimize unintended negative consequences. Programs should target community-identified needs.

Finally, programs should analyze their impact, based on clearly defined social equity goals and criteria track success. This requires proactive planning to collect the date needed, so that administrators and officials can use the analysis to improve the program going forward and inform the design of future climate change grants.

During the Equity Lab session on Development without Displacement, we developed an interactive activity to walk participants through creating an anti-displacement plan. Imagine that after years of underinvestment, your neighborhood is starting to see new development, and you get to be part of the group that is making sure that development happens equitably. Your job is to make sure residents, small businesses, and cultural institutions can stay, even if the rents go up. Here are the materials we used in that exercise:

The City of Oakland released its 2018-2020 Economic Development Strategy with a strong focus on entrepreneurship to build wealth in local communities of color. To support the strategy’s desired racial equity outcomes, The Greenlining Institute founded the Small Business Advisory Group, a roundtable comprised of local small business leaders committed to advancing the needs of Oakland’s entrepreneurs of color. Members include technical assistance providers, community lenders, ethnic chambers, and small business advocates.

With the goal of fostering a healthy and more inclusive small business ecosystem that allows entrepreneurs of color to thrive, the Small Business Advisory Group has developed a menu of recommendations designed to help the city of Oakland achieve the ambitious racial equity and small business goals included in its 2018-2020 Economic Development Strategy. We hope these recommendations will be useful for Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, city councilmembers, the Economic and Workforce Development Department, and Oakland’s local business community, and offer our partnership for implementation.

Removing Barriers, Creating Economic Opportunity

About The Greenlining Institute

Founded in 1993, The Greenlining Institute envisions a nation where communities of color thrive and race is never a barrier to economic opportunity. We advance economic opportunity for people of color through advocacy, community and coalition building, research, and leadership development. We work on a variety of major policy issues because economic opportunity doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Rather than seeing these issues as being in separate silos, Greenlining views them as interconnected threads in a web of opportunity. The Greenlining Institute is a 501(C)(3) nonprofit registered in the US under EIN: 94-3173571.